The Concept of Attribution in the Law of International Responsibility

Uluslararası Sorumluluk Hukukunda Atıf Mefhumu

Emrah TANYILDIZI

Emerging types of relationships between private actors and states affect the entire international political and legal system. As the links between private actors and controlling legal authorities that are subject to international law become increasingly complicated, so does the allocation of responsibility for wrongful conduct by private actors. International law does not possess cutting edge legal instruments for holding the perpetrators of wrongful acts accountable. The key question, therefore, concerns when subjects of international law bear responsibility for seemingly private conduct.

The law of attribution concerns the relationship between state and nonstate actors under international law. When states act through persons, questions of attribution involve the conditions under which those states can be held responsible for wrongful international conduct. International tribunals have offered substantial but various interpretations of attribution functions, and their case law has extended to discussions of attribution. The courts have used the concept of control to elaborate the type of control necessary to trigger responsibility by establishing their own attribution models.

This present study includes a substantial analysis of the theoretical and practical ambit of attribution, including the theory of international responsibility, international court decisions, accountability, and fragmentation debates in international law.

International Law, State Responsibility, Attribution, Nonstate/Private Actors, Control Tests.

Özel gerçek-tüzel kişiler ile devletler arasında yenilikçi ilişkiler uluslararası politik ve hukuki düzeni derinden etkilemektedir. Uluslararası hukukun konusu olarak özel gerçek-tüzel kişiler ve bu kişileri kontrol eden yasal otoriteler arasındaki ilişki yeteri kadar karmaşıkken, söz konusu ilişkiden kaynaklanan ve özel gerçek-tüzel kişilerin haksız fiillerinden dolayı kimin sorumlu tutulacağı aynı karmaşıklıkta hukuki bir sorunsal olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.

Uluslararası hukuk haksız fiilin failllerinin hesap verebilirliği yönünden kesin ve kritik hukuki enstrümanlardan yoksundur. Bu nedenle, görünüşte özel kişilerce işlendiği izlenimi veren haksız fiiller yönünden uluslararası hukuk süjeleri ne şekilde sorumlu tutulabilirler sorusu halen cevaplanmayı bekleyen bir hukuki sorunsaldır.

Uluslararası mahkemeler bugüne kadar özel gerçek-tüzel kişilerin haksız fiillerinin atfı noktasında hatırı sayılır yorum ve değerlendirmelerde bulunmuşlardır. Fakat bu yorumlar atıf kurallarına ilişkin tartışmayı dindirmemiş aksine daha da içinden çıkılmaz bir hukuksal soruna dönüştürmüştür. Uluslararası mahkemeler kontrol mefhumunu kullanmış ve ne tür bir kontrolün devletlerin sorumluluğunu doğurabileceğini kendi atıf kurallarını modelleyerek ortaya koymuşlardır.

Bu çalışma, atıf kuralları yönünden teorik ve pratik esasları ortaya koyarken uluslararası sorumluluk teorisi ve uluslararası mahkememe kararları yanında, uluslararası hukukta hesap verebilirlik ve fragmentasyon tartışmalarına da değinerek derinlemesine konuyu irdelemektedir.

Uluslararası Hukuk, Devletlerin Sorumluluğu, Atıf Esasları, Özel Gerçek-Tüzel Kişiler, Kontrol Testleri.

Attribution concerns the relationship between state and nonstate actors under international law. When states act through persons, questions of attribution involve the conditions under which those states can be held responsible for internationally wrongful acts committed by nonstate/private actors. The function of attribution in international law has both theoretical and practical implications. On the one hand, it appears that attribution, as an abstract notion, is indistinct and fragmentary in theories of international law; on the other, state practice may vary according to circumstance.

International tribunals have offered substantial but various interpretations of attribution functions, and their case law has extended to discussions of attribution. The courts have used the concept of control, elaborating the type of control necessary to trigger responsibility and encouraging de facto (as opposed to de jure) analyses to establish control using their own attribution models.¹ The findings presented here, however, indicate that current models of attribution have an impact on one another, since they engage in the same legal inquiry regarding who is controlled by whom, the required threshold to establish control, who can be held responsible for wrongful conduct, and the sorts of facts that are relevant to such determinations. This study proposes that the doctrine of attribution provides answers to questions raised by these issues.

It is crucial to establish whether the distinctions among approaches to the problem of attribution are theoretical or dogmatic in nature, or are rather the consequence of real practical differences emerging from different perspectives on the topic.² In order to make this distinction, the present study includes a substantial analysis of the theoretical and practical ambit of attribution, including the theory of international responsibility, international court decisions, accountability, and fragmentation debates in international law.